bevo,
Fair enough. As I said, the uptick rule is mostly a psychological/symbolic measure anyway.
Fair enough. As I said, the uptick rule is mostly a psychological/symbolic measure anyway.
Quote from bevo96:
MK,
I have to respectfully disagree here. I think the perception of fair value is different from actual fair value in these cases. If you have a company that is actually making a REAL NET profit then at some price money is willing to come in and buy that series of cash flows, taking the company private if need be. If a company is highly levered in a low margin business and the stock price triggers debt covenants, then I can see where there is a problem. This is the risk you take by employing leverage in a low margin space.
I am not saying that naked short selling, in excess of the outstanding should be tolerated at all. The SEC should focus their energies on enforcing borrows and deliveries instead of this Cramer driven "witch hunt" of the up-tick rule. We all know the real players will either be exempt or use other methods to circumvent the rule anyways. Why artifically influence the market mechanism to appease people who think short selling downticks is the reason their stocks are down, not the change in the present value of future cash flows.
